The coming (and presently here) Depression

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I was going to say that there's a bigger difference between 0 genital warts and 1 genital wart than 35 or 36, but you decided to take it to the extreme...

just looking for a cheap way to tie this back to the El Dorado Mormon thread.....

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

no it's not the same. it's not the same in exactly the same way not-raping a fourteen year old girl and only raping her a little bit are two very different things.

knock, knock, mcfly, helloo!. I never said there was no difference between 0 and 1. There is, of course, a perfectly logical reason to draw that difference here. But if you think that's the only place to draw a difference, then you are shortsighted and mistaken. And if you think that's the best place to draw the difference between "left" and "right" political ideologies, you are lunatic fringe. Most of us draw a distinction at a much more useful place, as in which group wants to tax us more than the other group, and which group wants to tax us less than the other group. That dividing line is actually useful, having coincidence with tons more other dividing lines, and falling roughly along lines by which votes can make a difference in our lives.

Meanwhile, you are trying to tell everybody that there's no difference between taxing 1 percent and taxing 99 percent - it's all left. Or by your grotesque analogy, you argue that there is no difference between raping a 14 year old girl and raping and killing a 14 year old girl. You've drawn your distinction at a point that is entirely useless.

[Arne]

Without the income tax federal income would be were it was 10-11 years ago. That's not too radical for me. The other thing is that you could repace the income tax with a value-added tax that is paid at consumption. In my opinion this would be a better way and not as morally wrongas the income tax.

[alexamenos]

ul -- the reason, as I said earlier, that I think there is a categorical difference between 0% and 1% is because:

it's morally wrong (imho) to hold a gun to someone's head and force them to choose between imprisonment or shelling out a portion of their labor [working being a thing a person must do in order to survive, hence the options are a) die, b) go to prison; or c) shell out cash for the privilege of living and working]...

Perhaps you could explain to me why you think there is a similar categorical difference between 38% and 39%.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

The simple act of not taxing the crap out of everyone like Obama is about to do?

Do you have a source for that? Especially the "crap out of" part.

Per this speech, Obama says a family making less than 250k a year will not see taxes go up with him:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/barack-obama--2.html

[Flacolaco]

So he's going to keep the Bush tax cuts?

I'm sorry, I can't watch that video (youtube) at work.

[rabbitproof]

Looks like partially.

Here is a breakdown:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cf...926841&cpage=1

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

ul -- the reason, as I said earlier, that I think there is a categorical difference between 0% and 1% is because:



Perhaps you could explain to me why you think there is a similar categorical difference between 38% and 39%.

you can similarly draw a categorical distinction anywhere you might find it useful. Like I said before, for most of us, it's who is taxing more and who is taxing less. Wherever those numbers fall is arbitrary, whether it is 0 and 1 or -1 and 0 or 38 and 39 or 25 and 50.

The only reason to define 'left' and 'right' in ignorance of all other distinctions, and choose a category boundary that lumps almost all politicians into one side would be to make a point about your pet issue, rather than to communicate with other people.

by the way, is it normal for GDP to grow in a depression?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

you can similarly draw a categorical distinction anywhere you might find it useful. Like I said before, for most of us, it's who is taxing more and who is taxing less. Wherever those numbers fall is arbitrary, whether it is 0 and 1 or -1 and 0 or 38 and 39 or 25 and 50.

The only reason to define 'left' and 'right' in ignorance of all other distinctions, and choose a category boundary that lumps almost all politicians into one side would be to make a point about your pet issue, rather than to communicate with other people.

by the way, is it normal for GDP to grow in a depression?

Increase the money supply and GDP will always grow. Real GDP (GDP adjusted for inflation) Can also increase in a depression, since the method of keeping up with inflation is highly flawed in the US. Using older methods some say inflation is running at over 10% annualized.

A depression is a longer lasting period than what has happened so far, but sine congress and the adminsitration will make this a long lasting experience with all their bailouts and socialism you might have to call it a depression soon.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

Increase the money supply and GDP will always grow. Real GDP (GDP adjusted for inflation) Can also increase in a depression, since the method of keeping up with inflation is highly flawed in the US. Using older methods some say inflation is running at over 10% annualized.

Sounds a little like global warming. GDP goes up...depression...GDP goes down....depression.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Sounds a little like global warming. GDP goes up...depression...GDP goes down....depression.

Temperature is hard data. Either there is a increase in temperature or there isn't. If there is than we're in a warming period. If there isn't then we're not.

The same thing with GDP. If there is an increase in the money supply you can call it rising GDP, if there isn't than you can call it shrinking GDP. Without correct meassurement of inflation none of this data is worth a cent.

[alexamenos]

Arne is absolutely 100% objectively correct in saying that an increase in the money supply necessarily increases GDP....

....well, almost....

actually it would be more correct to say that an increase the supply of money necessary increases GDP, all other things being equal....

...the other thing being the velocity of money. which is to say that...

MV = GDP

where

M=money supply
V=Velocity of money
GDP=nominal gross domestic product

moreover, Arne's statement that you can't measure changes in real GDP without an accurate gauge of inflation, and I'm with Arne at least to the extent which he says or may say that present government calculations of inflation are garbage.

[alexamenos]

The only reason to define 'left' and 'right' in ignorance of all other distinctions, and choose a category boundary that lumps almost all politicians into one side would be to make a point about your pet issue, rather than to communicate with other people.

We might note you have been hyper-sensitive about my argument on income taxes, and it has been your hypersensitivity (perhaps combined with an unwillingness or inability on your part to address the central point of my argument) that has made this such a central issue.

You might refer to this post or this one or that one in this very thread where I've addressed the leftness of Comrade Bush without reference to my "pet issue," as you call it.

anyhoo...what you are doing is setting up a classic strawman, and I don't care to bother with such an argument.

Cheers

[chumdawg]

How freaking hilarious that you issue "Comrade Bush" in one sentence and then claim strawman in the next. LOL! Dangit, that is freaking funny! You managed to absolutely defeat your own self...LOL.

[ribosoma]

Taxation Under the Pharaohs and Today

by Gary North

On this, the 15th day of April, 2008, it does not hurt to do a brief comparison between the Bible's account of the tyranny of Egypt and our own democratically elected taskmasters.

The story of Joseph in Egypt is the story of how the people of Egypt came under the tyranny of a king who claimed divinity for himself. The biblical text does not say that this Pharaoh made such a claim, but we know from historical texts that the pharaoh was regarded as a divine-human link. When he died, he was believed to journey to the realm of the gods. He was the official source of meaning in the cosmos.

He was also responsible for allocating scarce economic resources for the benefit of the State. The estimation of the Pharaoh, not the estimations of acting buyers and sellers in free markets, was the standard of economic value. It was incumbent on the Pharaoh to make accurate cost-benefit estimates if the nation was to prosper. Egyptologist Henri Frankfort made this clear in a book published in 1948.

The king is not only instrumental in producing the 'fat of the land'; he must also dispense it. Only then is there evidence that he functions effectively. His bounty proves that he disposes, as a king should dispose, of the earth and its produce. . . . But the king also keeps alive the hearts of all those subjects who do not directly partake of his bounty. For he exercises a never ending mysterious activity on the strength of which daily, hourly, nature and society are integrated. [Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (University of Chicago Press, [1948] 1962), pp. 59–60.]

The king was understood to direct the very forces of nature. It was the king, and only the king, whose judgments concerning economic production were sovereign.

The Egyptians began with a false theology. They assumed, incorrectly, that their supreme ruler was the incarnation of the State as well as the very cosmos. This assumption was bound to lead to negative consequences. Joseph was the agent of these consequences.

ACCURATE FORESIGHT

The text tells us that the pharaoh had a dream that he was unable to understand: seven fat cattle were eaten by seven lean ones. Then he had a second dream, much like the first one: seven fat stalks of grain were eaten by seven lean ones. None of his court prophets and soothsayers could tell him what this meant.

Then one of his advisors told him of a man he had met during a stay in prison. This fellow prisoner had accurately forecast the death of another man imprisoned with them, as well as the success of the advisor.

The pharaoh brought Joseph before him. He asked Joseph if he could interpret the dream. Joseph did. There would be seven years of good harvests followed by seven years of famine. "And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass" (Genesis 41:32).

It always helps to have the equivalent of Warren Buffett interpreting the data for you. But you must also know what to do to protect yourself – even profit from the information. Lest pharaoh miss the point, Joseph made the connection. He described a plan dear to the hearts of political leaders down through the ages. He recommended that the government raise taxes.

Now therefore let Pharaoh look out a man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt. Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years. And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities. And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish not through the famine (Genesis 41:33–36).

But who might this be? Joseph, a prudent man, did not name anyone in particular. It is never wise to appear self-serving. He just waited. He did not have to wait long.

And the thing was good in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of all his servants. And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is? And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art (Genesis 41:37–39).

Once they had made up their minds – or at least the pharaoh made up his mind, and the yes-men who surrounded him concurred – the pharaoh announced a new economic order.

Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. (Genesis 41:40–43).

Then came the climax: "And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt" (Genesis 41:44). Joseph was given total power as the agent of the State.

So, Joseph had moved from prisoner to advisor and from advisor to second in command. This had taken maybe a couple of hours.

This was a terrific deal for Joseph. The pharaoh was treating him with the same kind of respect that the media treat the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. It is as if this account looked forward to Alan Greenspan – though clearly not to Ben Bernanke, for the text says specifically, "Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon: and he shaved himself" (Genesis 41:14a).

Notice the chain of events. The divine-human link in the most bureaucratic tyranny of the ancient world had two dreams that he could not understand. His advisors also did not understand them. So, on the say-so of a lower bureaucrat, the divine-human link brings a man out of prison to tell him what is going on. The prisoner becomes second in command.

This was centralization of power on a scale that would have made Julius Caesar salivate, let alone Lyndon Johnson.

THE PREDICTIONS CAME TRUE

It turned out that Joseph's predictions came true. This was possible because:

A. He was inspired by God.
B. He had not received a Ph.D. in economics
C. He was fresh out of prison.
D. He shaved.
E. All of the above.

The grain was stored in urban storage facilities. As soon as the famine hit, this arrangement would bring the rural population to the cities, hats in hand. This is what happened.

And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do. And the famine was over all the face of the earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands (Genesis 41:55–57).

The State did not give away grain. It sold the grain back to those from whom the State had collected grain for seven years. Heads, the State wins. Tails, the State wins.

The State sold to foreigners, too. The Egyptian State's balance of payments went positive and stayed positive.

In year two, Joseph made his offer:

Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones (Genesis 47:23–24).

He offered to buy a fifth of the land in perpetuity on behalf of the divine-human incarnation of the State. The people did the appropriate thing, politically speaking. They praised their master.

And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants. And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's (Genesis 47:25–26).

WAS THIS BIBLICAL ECONOMICS?

In 1963, I was a student at Westminster Theological Seminary. There, I heard about the interpretation of this section of the Bible that had been offered by a popular professor at a small Presbyterian college that sent graduates to Westminster. As the story came to me, the professor had argued that this was a biblical case for central economic planning and taxation. I decided then that I would eventually write something that addressed this interpretation. I did so in 1982 in Chapter 23 of my book, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. You can download it for free here.

What the professor failed to understand was this: Joseph's recommended system was a condemnation of central planning. Why? Because in order for it to work, the State must have the following:

1. A divine-human head of State
2. Divinely inspired dreams by this figure
3. A divinely inspired interpreter of dreams
4. An interpreter who can put two and two together and reach a practical conclusion (i.e., not an academic economist)
5. The power to impose new taxes at any time
6. An army of tax collectors
7. A nation of political sheep
8. A willingness to fleece the sheep once
9. A willingness to fleece them forever

In contrast to "Egyptian" economics is biblical economics. The prophet Samuel warned the Israelites, who demanded that he ordain a king like other nations had.

And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day (1 Samuel 8:11–18).

This warning fell on deaf ears. "Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us" (I Samuel 8:19).

The Bible is clear: When the central government collects as much in taxes as God demands in the form of a tithe – 10% – the nation has moved into tyranny. It has moved in the direction of Egypt.

The Israelites in Samuel's era, let it be noted, wanted this change in administration. They wanted a highly centralized State. They voted for it.

Conclusion: "There is no political salvation in democracy if the voters are hell-bent for tyranny."

A TASTE OF TYRANNY

Joseph in Egypt brought the Egyptian nation more firmly under tyranny. Why? For the same reason that the prophets of Israel and Judah said that God would judge them by captivity in foreign lands. The Egyptians had attributed to a man what God alone possesses: absolute sovereignty. They had declared their faith in the divine State. Joseph let the Egyptians get a taste of tyranny.

Eventually, Israelites were given this same lesson. A pharaoh arose who did not honor the tradition of Joseph. Under Joseph, the Israelites inherited the land of Goshen. That inheritance was removed by the Egyptians.

Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour (Exodus 1:11–14).

This tyranny was consistent with the theology of Egypt: subservience to a divine-human political leader in a bureaucratic State. It was inconsistent with the theology of Israel.

The trouble was, the Israelites could not shake free of this theology until after the captivity to Assyria and Babylon. They longed to return to Egypt. "We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick" (Numbers 11:5).

CONCLUSION

In today's world, to get back to the tyranny of Egypt – 20% of income – the various levels of civil government would have to cut taxes by at least half.

The trouble is, the voters' response is familiar. "And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants." They do not cry out to God for deliverance back to the "low-tax" regime of Egypt. Egypt was a veritable flat-tax paradise compared to modern America. Yet Christians and Jews vote for more of the same.

So, the tax ratchet will continue upward. The regulatory system will tighten. If the victims cannot recognize tyranny when they are taxed by it, then they are blind indeed. They need additional experience with tyranny. They will get it.

April 15, 2008

Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

LINK

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

You might refer to this post or this one or that one in this very thread where I've addressed the leftness of Comrade Bush without reference to my "pet issue," as you call it.

Cheers

lessee - size of government, economics of government, size of government, seems like repetitions of your pet issue. No doubt Bush doesn't mind growing the government, and doing so with tax dollars. But he is still to the right of those on the left of this, his most left issue. But to call him faux conservative and leftist is to ignore all of the other stuff that goes into those labels. As examples of other issues, I've suggested role of the military (which you subsumed under size of government, though the leftists of today would not) and abortion (which you chose to ignore). You might also look at gay marriage, supreme court nominations, affirmative action, and countless other issues other than size of the government that could, should, and are used to label today's polititians as 'left' and 'right'.

And as for a straw man, are you not labeling 'left' and 'right' around the categories of taxation that you've drawn at 0%, or is that a real man?

[alexamenos]

ul -- My point is that Bush is very politically comparable to the likes of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ -- I don't care what you call their political persuasion, this is who Bush is.

And as for a straw man, are you not labeling 'left' and 'right' around the categories of taxation that you've drawn at 0%, or is that a real man?

The larger point was that the debate between supply-siders such as Bush and the non-supply siders is a technical debate over what tax rate maximizes government revenues. Hence, the distinction I've is between those who do and do not think the question of how to maximize government revenue is a question worth considering. Hence, in my view those who think the optimal tax rate is the one which maximizes government revenues are leftists, those think that the principal question of income taxes is a matter of natural rights including the right to property are rightists.....or something like that.

Moreover, you've never responded to any points I've made with respect to Bush's regard for the military, abortion, or any other issues....at the least I've suggest that my definition of "leftist" is something rooted in history, and based on certain keynesian and collectivist assumptions.

I don't dispute that the country has moved far to the left to the left through the years, so much so that a president who once would have been viewed as prototypically liberal is now considered part of the radical right by some. If we only define right and left as relative to one another, then by definition one half of the country is politically "right" and one half is politically "left". The point is conceded, and it is a mundane and useless point in my view.

And Chum, referring to President Bush as "Comrade Bush" is not a strawman, it is a slur. As such it may be impolite but it is not illogical.

Cheers

[wmbwinn]

Well....

the thread turned into a philosophical debate about "right" versus "left" and the difference between Absolute "right" versus Absolute "left" and Relative "right" versus Relative "left".

Alex may regard me as an Absolute "leftist" and a Relative "rightist" by his definitions.

Anyway, we still have absolutely no debate about which presidential candidate represents the best option for the economy.

Alex regards both as doomed to failure and views the economy therefore as one which will futher tank with either option. He may be right.

But, let's assume that we are going to choose the best of two bad possibilities if we adopt the most skeptical view of Alex.

Or, if you disagree, then support the McCain proposals for the economy or support the Obama proposals for the economy.

Anyway, the philosophy has been fun but the thread is hijacked by it. No one has addressed the original idea of the thread.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Well....

the thread turned into a philosophical debate about "right" versus "left" and the difference between Absolute "right" versus Absolute "left" and Relative "right" versus Relative "left".

Alex may regard me as an Absolute "leftist" and a Relative "rightist" by his definitions.

Anyway, we still have absolutely no debate about which presidential candidate represents the best option for the economy.

Alex regards both as doomed to failure and views the economy therefore as one which will futher tank with either option. He may be right.

But, let's assume that we are going to choose the best of two bad possibilities if we adopt the most skeptical view of Alex.

Or, if you disagree, then support the McCain proposals for the economy or support the Obama proposals for the economy.

Anyway, the philosophy has been fun but the thread is hijacked by it. No one has addressed the original idea of the thread.

Alexa is a nutcase who thinks that a country as big as ours can keep on going without any dollars for public services. I'm sure she would like to keep her whole paycheck, but I doubt she would enjoy fending for herself when the situation arose.

Your premise in starting the thread was equally naive. We aren't in a depression, nor are we going to be in one soon.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Alexa is a nutcase who thinks that a country as big as ours can keep on going without any dollars for public services. I'm sure she would like to keep her whole paycheck, but I doubt she would enjoy fending for herself when the situation arose.

Your premise in starting the thread was equally naive. We aren't in a depression, nor are we going to be in one soon.

You aren't alone in saying that a Depression is not on the horizon. We'll see.

Regardless of whether we meet the textbook defintion of a Depression, surely you will agree that the economy has problems right now.

So, move from there and explain to me which candidate is the better choice purely based on the problems that the economy is facing.

If you need help, here is a list:
1)which one is better for gas prices?
2)Which one is likely to improve the auto industry?
3)Which is likely to improve the banking industry (Freddie and Fannie disaster)?
4)Which is likely to decrease the climbing unemployment rate?
5)Which is likely to prevent run away inflation?

If you dislike both candidates, which one will do the most damage?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You aren't alone in saying that a Depression is not on the horizon. We'll see.

Regardless of whether we meet the textbook defintion of a Depression, surely you will agree that the economy has problems right now.

So, move from there and explain to me which candidate is the better choice purely based on the problems that the economy is facing.

If you need help, here is a list:
1)which one is better for gas prices?
2)Which one is likely to improve the auto industry?
3)Which is likely to improve the banking industry (Freddie and Fannie disaster)?
4)Which is likely to decrease the climbing unemployment rate?
5)Which is likely to prevent run away inflation?

If you dislike both candidates, which one will do the most damage?

Rather than asking for my opinion, why don't you elaborate your own answers to those questions.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Rather than asking for my opinion, why don't you elaborate your own answers to those questions.

I did speak to the issues in the very beginning of the thread.

Since then, the Freddie/Fannie mess became front page news.

1)which one is better for gas prices?
I see the Republican party at least trying to do something. The Dems say nothing can be done and that the environment concerns trump the possibility that we might drill offshore or in ANWR.
So, the choice is try something (Republicans) or do nothing (Dems).
There is a separate thread about the Republican party protest of Pelosi's shutting down Congress without a vote on offshore drilling.


2)Which one is likely to improve the auto industry?

Neither. McCain said, "Those jobs are not coming back."
Now, Obama has said that he intends to increase taxes on those making more than 250K per year. Well, after we get past the "Feel Good" impulse reaction to "sticking it to the man", we have to realize that means that your employer is going to get taxed harder. That is bad for all aspects of the economy and the employment rate...


3)Which is likely to improve the banking industry (Freddie and Fannie disaster)?

Passed a bill to bail them out already. The real question I suppose is whether we regulate the credit industry. Banks and other lesser groups created wild loans and gave them to everyone regardless of their credit and income and then kicked those notes off to Freddie and Fannie based on the basic paperwork which does not include information on the person's income (just shows their credit ranking) and does not show their monthly budget. So, Fannie and Freddie pick up all these crazy irresponsible loans and then the whole system collapses and Uncle Sam bails the system out...

Their are problems there. But, regulation worries me. So, I have no set opinion here. We might need to adjust the system at the level of Freddie and Fannie. Perhaps, those two require more information before picking up loans in the first place...

4)Which is likely to decrease the climbing unemployment rate?

Again, I vote for the Republican purely because Obama intends to raise taxes which is bad for a failing/struggling economy.

5)Which is likely to prevent run away inflation?

Neither. The Fed Reserve cannot lower interest rates now because of inflation. The Fed Reserve cannot increase interest rates because it will hurt the economy. So, we have the Jimmy Carter era all over again. No easy solution here.

Have to fix the economy and suffer out the inflation problem...

My primary problem/objection to the Obama economy is the huge tax rate on the top 2% of the nation. That top 2% hire you and most of us. That 2% drive the economy. They can't hire if the tax rate goes up. They can't invest more if the tax rate goes up. They have to deal with additional negative numbers in their businesses. Those negative numbers are dangerous right now.

The whole Progressive/Liberal philosophy (which Alex says is present in both parties based on old historical perspectives and he is right) has to be reigned in especially with a struggling/failing economy.

Lowering taxes and increases government spending into the economy was how Reagan fixed the Carter era problems.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Alexa is a nutcase who thinks that a country as big as ours can keep on going without any dollars for public services. I'm sure she would like to keep her whole paycheck, but I doubt she would enjoy fending for herself when the situation arose.

Your premise in starting the thread was equally naive. We aren't in a depression, nor are we going to be in one soon.

Have to agree...It's a debate I have with my more "pure" conservative (and libertarian) friends. Guvment is needed for much..

I do wish there was a constitutional control on spending however, that one they'll never get control of until it's a crisis.

[chumdawg]

Lowering taxes and at the same time increasing government spending is not a quaint solution, over the long term. In fact, it's the reason we are in the position we are in now. (A "depression," as you described it.) Surely you recognize that Clinton ran up budget surpluses during his time in office, and Bush has ran up defecits.

Other than that, if your argument is focused on the candidates, then I'm afraid you are conflating the parties with the respective candidates. You asked which candidate was better poised to enact the kind of reforms you desire, but evidently what you meant was "which congress."

I'm all for running the Democrats out of power in the congress, given that they can't seem to tell their ass from a hole in the ground. But it's a folly to ascribe their ineptitude to the Democratic candidate.

Our only hope is that Obama can provide the leadership that the Democratic party is so sorely lacking. Because I'm here to tell you that McCain isn't going to be able to do jackshit with a Democratic congress, and by all accounts that congress is only going to get more Democratic this fall.

If what you want is solutions to problems, you aren't going to get them if McCain wins this fall. He'll be impotent, if the congress shapes up like it surely will. The best you can hope for is gridlock and the status quo. At least with Obama you have the sliver of a hope that he might do something right.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Lowering taxes and at the same time increasing government spending is not a quaint solution, over the long term. In fact, it's the reason we are in the position we are in now. (A "depression," as you described it.) Surely you recognize that Clinton ran up budget surpluses during his time in office, and Bush has ran up defecits..

You do recognize that Clinton ran up record guvment revenues, never cut the budget once.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You do recognize that Clinton ran up record guvment revenues, never cut the budget once.

I'm sure those records have been surpassed, no?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm sure those records have been surpassed, no?

Yup...sure have. Every president in history has spent more than the last one.

Dubya's record on spending will be a bad one. But i daresay he had a tad more challenging time to deal with.

edit: that top one may not be true someone may have reduced the budget, but I can't recall in modern time anyone doing it.

[alby]

^ the point is still clear to me

Bill Clinton got an exaggerated amount of praise
while G.W. will get an exaggerated amount of condemnation

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Dubya's record on spending will be a bad one.

Exactly. If you spend like a liberal, how are you not a liberal?

Bush has spent money like it's going out of style.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Exactly. If you spend like a liberal, how are you not a liberal?

Bush has spent money like it's going out of style.

No...if you didn't spend like a liberal you could certainly still be liberal. You could nationalize the oil industry for example, wouldn't spend a penny I don't think but would surely be liberal.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Alexa is a nutcase who thinks that a country as big as ours can keep on going without any dollars for public services. I'm sure she would like to keep her whole paycheck, but I doubt she would enjoy fending for herself when the situation arose.

Your premise in starting the thread was equally naive. We aren't in a depression, nor are we going to be in one soon.

Eliminating the IRS would take federal revenues back to where they where at the end of the Clinton adminsitration. Is that too much in your opinion? You'd rather like the government to keep coming up with new social programs that would further increase the deficit further increase the interest that needs to be paid on the deficit every year (even back when Reagan was president he concluded that every cent of the income tax was entirely used up for paying the interest on the national debt before anything could be used in order to finance some of the programs government had in mind). The baby boomers have just started to get out of work this year, entitlements will have to be paid.

If you really think that America can go on and on like this than you're the one who's naive.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Arne

Increase the money supply and GDP will always grow. Real GDP (GDP adjusted for inflation) Can also increase in a depression, since the method of keeping up with inflation is highly flawed in the US. Using older methods some say inflation is running at over 10% annualized.

Stagflation, y'all. We're pretty much already there.

If the GDP grows .9% like it did in 1Q08, or whatever it was.. but the dollar drops more than .9%.. that's negative growth.


edit... looked up the stats.

[wmbwinn]

Obama went hard left to beat Hillary. As soon as he beat Hillary, he went centrist to deal with McCain. When he wins the White House, he will inherit a strongly Left Congress and will be forced hard left again.

I do not think it is a good idea to support the CHANGE of Obama when that change means increasing taxation on the part of the economy that hires and provides solutions.

I would rather see GRIDLOCK with McCain that the sort of change Obama represents for the economy.

I would not be surprised at all to see Obama shift to a Centrist economy and for the Congress full of Dems to shift to a Centrist economy plan due to the obvious failures of a Left wing economy plan in a time of economy trouble.

I sure wish people would stop praising Clinton for the REPUBLICAN party success in Congress of balancing a budget and producing a surplus (ie, Newt's class that started in 1994 and succeeded in the middle of the Clinton years). The only positive influence that Clinton had on the economy directly himself was to help sell books about the oral skills of interns.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Obama went hard left to beat Hillary. As soon as he beat Hillary, he went centrist to deal with McCain. When he wins the White House, he will inherit a strongly Left Congress and will be forced hard left again.

I do not think it is a good idea to support the CHANGE of Obama when that change means increasing taxation on the part of the economy that hires and provides solutions.

I would rather see GRIDLOCK with McCain that the sort of change Obama represents for the economy.

I would not be surprised at all to see Obama shift to a Centrist economy and for the Congress full of Dems to shift to a Centrist economy plan due to the obvious failures of a Left wing economy plan in a time of economy trouble.

Wmbwinn..why would you expect the congress to shift to centrist policies. They do not believe in them. The current democrat party is the most liberal in my history anyway. They've bascially thrown out the centrist philosophies that elected clinton. They are what they are.

[wmbwinn]

Dude1394, I'm not sure even a die hard Dem could really substantially increase taxes on the business community and corporate world and the small business industry at a time of economic duress.

I just wonder if they will shift to a centrist plan due to that "fact on the ground". Obama shifts to the "facts on the ground" all the time (and that is not necessarily good/bad, the judgement depends on the situation).

[dude1394]

Obama shifts to the political facts on the ground imo. He's not the most liberal senator in the senate for nothing.

If you don't think they will not enact the policies they are espousing would mean that you don't think they believe in them, I believe they do.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Obama shifts to the political facts on the ground imo. He's not the most liberal senator in the senate for nothing.

If you don't think they will not enact the policies they are espousing would mean that you don't think they believe in them, I believe they do.

The primary political fact is that if they do increase taxes on the business structure (those darned evil rich people making more than 250K per year) that the economy will tank faster and harder.

Eventually they will remember that the majority of elections have been "its the economy, stupid".

Eventually, the political facts on the ground match the long standing absolute facts on the ground.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Eventually they will remember that the majority of elections have been "its the economy, stupid".

Eventually, the political facts on the ground match the long standing absolute facts on the ground.

Next election they "might" remember it. Janett will still be blaming the neo-cons.

[wmbwinn]

Yes. Barring an unbelievable miracle, Obama will win. Then it will take a few years for reality to set in. Then the Centrists will swing to the Republicans again. Hopefully, the next Republican is a good Republican.

[wmbwinn]

August Is the Time to Take Obama Down

Saturday, August 02, 2008

When is the McCain campaign going to get serious? It seems to be marking time with softball ads, more appropriate to the soundbites campaign media spokespeople exchange with one another than to strategic paid media hits. One ad talks about how the media loves Obama. Another mocks him as a celebrity. Each throws pitty-pat punches, far short of the kind of knockout blows one would expect from a presidential campaign. Were I a donor to McCain's campaign, paying for these pathetic spots, I would demand a refund. Or sue for malpractice.

Yet despite this softball nonsense, Obama remains vulnerable, no better than two points ahead despite the bounce from his overseas trip.

Are the McCain people waiting for September to get serious? If so, they are making a big mistake and missing an important opportunity. History indicates that the best time to beat a new candidate is in the summer. August to be precise.

Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry all were destroyed in the summer, long before the fall campaign began. In 1984, the offensive against Geraldine Ferraro crippled Mondale well before Labor Day. In 1988, the pledge of allegiance, revolving door, and Willie Horton ads all ran in the summer. Dukakis was dead by September. And the swift boat attack on Kerry defeated him well before the summer was over.

McCain needs to make voters afraid of Obama. Not, as he suggests self-servingly, by emphasizing that he "doesn't look like all the other presidents on dollar bills," but by hitting him on the two fronts where it would really hurt -- the economy and national security. Obama's inexperience and the wildly liberal proposals he has made in his primary campaigning, both set him up for a crippling blow this month.

Oil drilling is an issue, but it does not provoke the fear that the McCain campaign needs to elicit to win. It's just an issue disagreement with bad consequences for the nation. Obama's position on the issue is not a recipe for national disaster.

But his tax plans and their likely economic consequence are very much a plan for catastrophe. Doubling the tax in invested capital, and ratcheting up the top tax bracket to an effective 60%, will plunge the nation into a real depression. Not a recession or a downturn or a correction or a slowdown. A depression. McCain needs to hammer this point home again and again and again in his advertising. He has to put top level economists on television talking about what the Obama tax program will mean to America. Obama is suspect as an ideological liberal, anyway. And nobody thinks he has the experience to be a good president. So the potential to scare voters by accurately elaborating what his tax plans will mean to the entire country -- not just the rich on whom the burden will directly fall -- is enormous.

When Obama says he will only tax the rich, it's like saying he won't shut down the entire ship, just the engine room. If McCain just talks about Obama's tax program in the abstract, most voters will shrug and note that the tax hikes won't really apply to them. Only 2% of Americans earn more than $200,000 a year and only 6% make more than $100,000. But if McCain explains the economic impact of Obama's tax proposals on all Americans, he will score points and could score a knockout.
The national security offensive should have two parts. First, McCain's ads should portray Obama as naive. By taking off on his comment that Iran is a "tiny country" that couldn't hurt the US much, he can show how the Democrat is not prepared to cope with the serious national security problems which will face the next president. The more the crisis with Iran ratchets up, the more dividends this approach will reap for McCain. But, as with the argument of an impending depression if Obama wins, McCain needs to begin the argument now and let it pile up by the fall.

Secondly, McCain should take Obama's proposed changes in the Patriot Act and show how they would weaken us in the face of domestic terror threats. Don't let the liberal media fool you. Bush's domestic security initiatives are very popular. How will Obama explain his legislation to notify suspected terrorist groups seven days after Homeland Security begins an investigation of them? Or how will he explain his opposition to the wiretapping that saved the Brooklyn Bridge from destruction. McCain needs to paint Obama as weak on homeland security.

This race is there for the winning, but McCain is using his paid media ads as mere press releases, touching on the events of the day without really using them as a strategic tool to destroy Obama. He needs to start doing so now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ake_obama_down


-------------------------------

I bolded the part that got my attention. Another person saying the same thing I have been saying...